Friday, February 21, 2014

Chemin Neuf at Lambeth Palace: a "profound" step on the road to Christian unity

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has formally welcomed and commissioned four members of Chemin Neuf, the international ecumenical community, at Lambeth Palace.
The members of the community, who took up residence in the Palace last month, consist of a married Anglican couple, Ione and Alan Morley-Fletcher; a Lutheran training for ministry, Oliver Matri; and a Roman Catholic consecrated sister, Ula Michlowicz. They share in the daily round of prayer that underpins the Archbishop's ministry, and further the ecumenical and international dimensions of his work.

A special inaugural service was presided over by the Archbishop, and guests included Fr Laurent Fabre, founder and Superior General of the Chemin Neuf community; the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Southwark, the Most Revd Peter Smith; the Archbishop’s Representative to the Holy See, Archbishop David Moxon; and the Bishop of the Lutheran Church in Great Britain, Dr Martin Lind.

That's all nicely ecumenical, reflecting something of the essence of Anglicanism's
vocation to be catholic and reformed. It also reflects Archbishop Justin's essential Christian spirituality: it is perhaps no coincidence that his enthronement at Canterbury on 21st March 2013 coincided with the Church's commemoration of His Grace's martyrdom in 1556, and also the feast day of St
Benedict of Monte Cassino, a significant figure for both Canterbury
Cathedral and Archbishop Justin himself, who is an oblate of the Order
of Benedict.

Benedict's monasticism helped to shape Rome's Semper Eadem; His Grace's witness challenged the Church to semper reformanda. But it would be a mistake to deny Benedict's historic capacity for reform, or, indeed, His Grace's reverence for the Church Fathers and his respect for the catholic traditions of the Faith. If the names of Benedict and Cranmer echo in Justin's mind, and if their spirits course through his devotional arteries, then we can expect Anglican discipleship and ministry to be nudged toward Benedict’s Rule, but not at the expense of His Grace's renewal.

It has been observed that Archbishop Justin has a
Roman Catholic spiritual director - Nicolas Buttet, who founded the
Eucharistein community in Switzerland. The Archbishop has also been on spiritual retreats in France with Chemin Neuf, which was founded by a Jesuit who
had experienced charismatic renewal. The focus is on spiritual discipline: the spiritual objective is Christian unity. He probably experiences more peace and harmony among them than he ever finds at Synod.

And let's be honest, prayer is a bit of a slog. It can also be a tedious, lonely, fruitless pursuit, so His Grace is of the view that the more of it going on at Lambeth Palace, the better. The first of three priority areas for Archbishop Justin’s ministry over the coming years is the renewal of prayer and the religious life within the Church.
The Archbishop observes: “There has never been a renewal of the Church in Western Europe without a renewal of prayer and the life of religious communities. If we want to see things changed, it starts with prayer. I am deeply moved that in God’s grace Chemin Neuf agreed to this radical and exciting new step of coming to live as a community of prayer, hospitality and learning at Lambeth Palace. We pray that this step of obedience will bear fruit among us, and for the church.”

Fr Laurent Fabre said: “480 years it has been, and we are rejoicing over this new step. But the one who is rejoicing most is the Father himself, because 480 years of waiting is long even for God. This is a first step of something new.”

With respect to Fr Laurent Fabre, this just is a tad overplayed. God has not been waiting since 1534 for rapprochement: Jesus was praying "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21) a few thousand years ago.

Sister Ula Michlowicz said: “Being part of this great ecumenical adventure is for me, as a Catholic Sister, a huge privilege. So the gratefulness comes first. I feel fully welcomed, despite the very serious Palace's interiors there is such friendly atmosphere here! I love praying in the crypt. It is like being part of an underground prayer stream overflowing into Lambeth Palace, to the city of London, to all these places we're praying for, such the river of life.

“To be together around the altar during the daily Community Eucharist is a deep experience of both: communion and suffering of separation. I just remain with Jesus washing our feet, of all of us. It gives me strength.”

That is communion in the Lordship of Christ; separation because Lambeth Palace uses Common Worship for the Eucharist and Sister Ula does not partake of the Anglican bread and wine but walks to Westminster Cathedral to receive the Real thing.

John Bingham notes in The Telegraph that this venture "is the first move of its kind since the Reformation", but His (former) Grace doesn't quite agree with His (present) Grace that it constitutes a “profound” step on the road to eventual unity between the churches. The Reformation may have been a tragedy for Church unity, but it wasn't just a simple misunderstanding. The hurdles that remain are apparently insuperable: the Anglican Eucharist welcomes Roman Catholics; Rome's Mass remains closed to Anglicans. There are also certain thornier issues - "errors" - like Trent, gospel soteriology and the Petrine ministry itself. Not to mention women priests, women bishops, and the (most likely) development of a same-sex blessing/marriage liturgy. From the temporal perspective at least, these would appear to constitute profound steps toward disunity - both between and within the churches.

There is no place for either priests or their altars in the Christian church. Our use of altars and priests was done away with, back on Calvary about 2000 years ago. An altar is certainly not the place to celebrate the Lord's Supper!

Nor is there any true reform, in the sense of the real reforming of the Reformation, he remains an idolater and, from their web page, so do the members of Chemin Neuf. There is a reason why the Reformation happened, it was the Christians leaving the pagan church of Rome and it was far from a tragedy!

What is a tragedy is that so many in the CoE look to tradition rather than the Bible for guidance.

It would be better for the CoE to do away with priestcraft entirely and concentrate on biblical Christianity.

Well, there is a place for priests in Christianity, Martin; we Catholics call them "priests", and they continue the service formerly provided by the Jewish priesthood as sanctioned by that same Bible. And while I would not normally quote a liberal on issues of morality, in the matter of doing away with tradition and "concentrating on Biblical Christianity" I think he calls it just about right here.

Our use of altars and priests was done away with, back on Calvary about 2000 years ago. An altar is certainly not the place to celebrate the Lord's Supper!

This just looks muddled to me. Altars and priests in Christianity are there precisely because, as St Paul says:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.

So the Mass is in no sense the kind of sacrifice which was abolished by the cross. Rather it is the making present of the sacrifice of the cross - ditto the priest.

we Catholics call them "priests", and they continue the service formerly provided by the Jewish priesthood

Not often do you see that kind of honesty from Roman Catholic. Yes, Rome is the Old Testament system of temple sacrifices dressed up in NewTestament clothes. Roman priests offer the same repetitive sacrifices that can never save, never bring peace with God, never remove Sin. It would put boundaries between men and the One High Priest who offered one perfect sacrifice once and lives to make intercession.

You have one High Priest, all right, Martin; the problem is, it's yourself. That's the rotteness at the heart of Protestanism and the reason why it always leads, at the societal level at least, to atheism.

18 Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle.19 Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other.20 Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to be covered.21 In which thou shalt put the testimony that I will give thee.22 Thence will I give orders, and will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubims, which shall be upon the ark of the testimony, all things which I will command the children of Israel by thee.

There is no biblical prohibition on the use of statues, paintings, icons or whatever, provided it's not the statues or icons you are worshipping. For this purpose, worship of the self counts as idolatry.

The Bible is central to Christian faith. But the belief that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole source of Christianity has a few problems associated with it.

People have always disagreed over exactly what the Bible teaches. If there was no final authority, apart from the Bible, it results in people breaking away from the different Churches to establish their own church which has the ‘right’ interpretation of the Bible. There are now hundreds – or thousands – of Churches in the world.

There is also the fact that the Early Church – the Faith Community of Christians – existed before any of the New Testament was written. It came into being at the first Pentecost, when the Gospel was preached. The NT letters and the (written) Gospels came later.

The final agreement on which books or letters should be included in the NT was decided, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by the Early Church leaders some time later on.

It was also the leaders and scholars of the Early Church who, during the next few hundred years, came together in Councils of the Church and hammered out how the Church understood God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Among other things, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Creeds of the Church were formulated.

So there are serious problems if it is claimed that the Bible alone is all that is necessary - though reading the Bible and trying to understand what it teaches remains absolutely central for all Christians.

I can well understand many who have been fed up by the shenanigans of the Church(es) – led by sinful men - throughout the ages, and who have fallen back on the Bible alone. But there are problems in this, mentioned above, and it results in the splintering of the Church.

Not often do you see that kind of honesty from Roman Catholic. Yes, Rome is the Old Testament system of temple sacrifices dressed up in NewTestament clothes. Roman priests offer the same repetitive sacrifices that can never save, never bring peace with God, never remove Sin. It would put boundaries between men and the One High Priest who offered one perfect sacrifice once and lives to make intercession.

Oh come now. You know full well that that is not what the Catholic Church understands of herself.

There were, in fact, only two sets of sacred vessels used in the Biblical worship of God. The first were used in the Tabernacle, after God showed Moses how to make the Ark of the Covenant and other holy vessels. When carried, the Ark was always hidden under a large veil made of skins and blue cloth, always carefully concealed, even from the eyes of the priests and the Levites who carried it.

It symbolised the visible presence of the invisible God dwelling among the people of Israel.

All were constructed at the divine command of God Himself only...Hardly a divine agreement to change statues of Jupiter to St. Peter . . . and the statue of Venus to the Virgin Mary, now is it??

Corrigan 14.15Which NT books are you referring to? Do you mean the OT Apocrypha? They are not part of the NT. Many Jewish synagogues have disagreements over whether the books of the Apocrypha (written in Greek) should be included. And the final form of the Hebrew Bible was not settled until after the time of Jesus. I agree that the CofE is somewhat confused about the place of the Apocrypha. They were translated into English when the Authorised Version of the Bible was made – I have a copy of the AV which contains the Apocrypha. Although they are not often used now, the CofE lectionary contains readings from them.

“"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness [of anything] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth [generations] of those who hate Me,” (Exodus 20:4-5 NKJV)

Now that crucifix, do you never bow to it, and that bread and wine, do you have a problem with it being spilled upon the floor? Those statues of Mary, and others you call saints, are they never treated with respect?

The opinion on what was the word of God was begun when the apostles were still writing and causing others to write. The books that had apostolic authority were agreed on by the churches, long before any councils made decrees. The New Testament grew with the Church and was the complete and perfect thing which took away the need for the sign gifts.

The Bible alone is our guide for no group of men is adequate for that task.

I would have thought that Corrigan's point would be that the canonisation of the scriptures is done ultimately by the (early) Church. The fact that they included books which may have been considered doubtful by Jews seems to indicate how strongly the Church felt about including them.

The books that had apostolic authority were agreed on by the churches, long before any councils made decrees. The New Testament grew with the Church and was the complete and perfect thing which took away the need for the sign gifts.

Some historical evidence would be useful here. When exactly are you saying the canon was agreed upon? What's your evidence? How do you know it was agreed if nothing was decreed? What do you mean by "sign gifts"?

The Bible alone is our guide for no group of men is adequate for that task.

The Bible alone is not adequate to teach that doctrine, and who is to interpret it anyway?

The Lord's Supper is a meal of remembrance, nothing more. As the Lord said, do it in remembrance of Him.

What does the word remembrance mean in that culture? Have you looked at the Protestant scholarship on this? If it is just about remembrance, why does St Paul say:

for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.

Are you serious? Sure, you can say that the Lord left them after the coming of Christ (although St Paul would disagree, I think). But prior to the coming of Christ, the incarnation was, on your terms superfluous: he was with them already.

The Lord's Supper is a meal of remembrance, nothing more. As the Lord said, do it in remembrance of Him.

Do this in memory of me. (1 Cor. 11.25)Whenever you drink it, do so in memory of me. (1 Cor. 11.25)Do this in memory of me. (Lk 22.19)

Yes, Martin, that was one of the things Jesus told the disciples at the Last Supper. But you flatly contradict the Gospel narrative when you add, "Nothing more." There was quite a lot more. Check it out for yourself: Mk 14.22-25, Mt 26.26-29, Lk 22.15-20, and 1 Cor. 23-25. Plus, according to some authorities, Jn 6.51, "The bread that I will give you is my flesh, which I give so that the world may live."

Did the disciples think that Jesus was giving them a bit of human flesh or a drop of blood? No, they knew that Jesus was speaking figuratively, just as he was when he spoke of His being the door they didn't expect a literal door.

The Catholic church sits there like a 'black hole' attempting to devour any who come to close to its inward gravitational pull.'The Reformers' broke free at great cost to themselves but I fear our present day leaders are venturing too close and are hearing those siren voices which are calling "unity" to lure them in close, so they will be drawn in to their certain sudden implosion.The Body of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit can only look on in dismay as those who venture too close disappear in a sudden flash of light to be seen again no more.So best to keep your ears plugged and to keep sailing a course straight and true with our guidance system 'The Holy Spirit' determining which course we should take to get us safely home.

Please take another look at the excerpt from 1 Cor that Albert transcribed in an earlier comment (today at 15:12). I have here added emphasis in bold, in two places:

for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.

Can you honestly say that Paul’s warning is fully consistent with your reading that “Jesus was speaking figuratively, just as he was when he spoke of His being the door they didn't expect a literal door”?

For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.

Can you honestly say that Paul’s warning is fully consistent with your reading that “Jesus was speaking figuratively, just as he was when he spoke of His being the door they didn't expect a literal door”?

Anyway getting back to what I was saying(I can still hear them baying but they might get thrown off the scent)There seems to be a move towards ecumenism and Pope Francis has certainly pushed this boat out and is inviting anyone to jump in as long as he keeps his hand firmly on the tiller.All aboard for the apostate Church.

I think you've said almost the same thing as me, but starting from the other end. All three represent sources of "authority", understanding God's will for us, with Scripture as uppermost. We agree I think.

The Lord's Supper is a commemorative meal, nothing more. The bread and wine remain bread and wine.

So you say, but you are not answering the exegetical arguments to the contrary.

It has no magical power and any benefit to the believer comes not through the bread and wine but through the Holy Spirit and the believer's obedience.

Obviously, it has no magical power - who is claiming that it does. Obviously, benefit to the believer does not come through the bread and wine - that's exactly Catholic teaching. but through the Holy Spirit and the believer's obedience Isn't that the very point UB and I have been arguing? Obviously, this is the Holy Spirit's work, obviously, in the light of the above passage of St Paul, it only benefits someone through their obedience.

Yes, of course I can consistently say that the bread and wine remain bread and wine though partaking in the fellowship meal of remembrance brings condemnation when it is done in the wrong way.

The divergence in wording between you and the scriptures is striking:

For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Jack finds it interesting that those engaging in major disagreement appear to be Catholics and Calvinists and others who seem not to be in the Anglican Community.

Jack has learned enough by now to know a Calvinist and a Roman Catholic will never agree and he suspects many Anglicans disagree with them too.

Jack agrees with the Archbishop that the "hurdles that remain are apparently insuperable". On top of the serious theological differences, which Jack understands the Catholic Church cannot change its teachings on, "women priests, women bishops, and the (most likely) development of a same-sex blessing/marriage liturgy" are surely deal breakers?

Jack also agrees these differences exist "between and within the churches".

An intriguing development, Your Grace. Is Archbishop Justin tilting the CofE ever so slightly towards Rome? One can envisage this as a tactical shift in order to try and deflect the possibility of bishopettes, an evolution that leads inexorably to an Archbishopette in the See of Canterbury. This in itself would have a catastrophic effect on the wider Anglican Communion; GAFCON would explode with indignation.

There seems little doubt that ++ Justin is quite high church, possibly several degrees higher than the Guardianistas and Lib-Dims who populate so much of the House of Bishops.

bluedog, Happy Jack is not so sure about this: "There seems little doubt that ++ Justin is quite high church..."

The Roman Catholics Justin Welby seems most comfortable with are evangelist, charismatic and spiritually focused. Okay, his spiritual adviser, Nicolas Buttet, is devoted to the Real Presence but he has an interesting history and conversion experience and has a preference for simplicity in worship.

Jack finds these developments of great interest and joins with them in their prayers for a spiritual renewal in the West.

Mr HJ @ 21.30, this communicant is not to be deflected from his view. Of course there is no suggestion that JW secretly hankers for the Tridentine Mass, or any similar manifestation, that would not be part of his religious composition at all. But when JW reads the 39 Articles and sees the more Calvinistic clauses, he may wonder how the CofE fell for that line of thought.

bluedog, Happy Jack may not know what "high church" really means then, as he accepts this: " ... when JW reads the 39 Articles and sees the more Calvinistic clauses, he may wonder how the CofE fell for that line of thought."

If you mean Justin is more Anglo-Catholic in his views about salvation and the need to reach out to save souls, then Jack agrees with you.

You well know I have never made any secrets of being, at heart, an Anglican Catholic,first seduced by Newman, and of late, greatly attracted by the Ordinariate project. I have had the honour to sit at the feet of the great Pusey on many an occasion and hear the purest Oracle of doctrine to have appeared in the Church of England since the Caroline divines.

This protestation made, I must tell you that I had to root out several conventicles of the so-called New Way in many of the canons of this cathedral chapter, and had to lend a hand to Archdeacon Grantly and Dr Tempest, to root out that heresy from their respective archdeaconry and deanery.

They preach things which are most repugnant to the plain Gospel of the Lord, namely a second "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", so-called. And they also promote those totally indecent outbreaks of inchoate sounds and various other psychological phenomena as the sign and seal of such a baptism.

Now that the Primate has granted his support ( there was always a whiff of ...about him), it's, as if, we'll have to go through the whole painful process that led to the Gorham decision again.

The Church of England has indeed come to a most unpleasant state if the regenerational power of her sacraments and rites are denied not only by dissenters, but also, implicitly by the Archbishop himself. One day they will probably ordain women to the priesthood.

I've already pointed out that there are ho exegetical arguments to the contrary. If you believe the bread and wine turn into flesh and blood you clearly do believe in them having magical powers. Such a belief means that you are upset when they are spilled on the floor, as I once had a discussion elsewhere.

For a Christian obedience always does bring its reward and at the Lord's supper meditating on what Christ has done for me is most certainly a benefit. The silliness of imagining that the bread becomes the body entirely misses the point of Christ being with His people. Indeed, such a belief in the transubstantiation of the symbols is proof, if proof were needed, of an inability to discern the Lord's body.

And, of course, the reason for Paul writing so was that the Corinthians had got into th habit of indulging themselves, eating and drinking to themselves and not in remembrance. Such sin most certainly brings upon the sinner a condemnation and ultimately a punishment.

It is noteworthy that the 39 Articles say this:Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

Dear Dean, how lovely to hear your thoughts on Anglo-Catholicism. Must admit I am rather against being 'Born again': once was quite enough. I also admit to a certain disenchantment with the Arch-Community-Songster of Canterbury and still think Bishop Chartres should have got the job (given the literary difficulties preventing my husband's elevation).

Chemin Neuf, "the international ecumenical community", Jesuits, a reunited church?

What is all this other than an attempt at trying to turn all Christians over to Pagan Rome: Babylon?

And the Reformation didn't go nearly far enough. Why do most "Christians" not celebrate the real seventh day Sabbath, but rather, observe the Pagan's day of rest as decreed by Constantine, to worship the Sun?

Mere tradition and lack of knowledge of the truth.

These "interfaith" groups ought to be viewed with great suspicion always, as the aim is for a One World Religion, which will definitely not be Christian, but possibly have the facade of such.

I've already pointed out that there are ho exegetical arguments to the contrary.

Where?

If you believe the bread and wine turn into flesh and blood you clearly do believe in them having magical powers.

How do you work that out? It is obviously the case that bread and wine do not have magical powers, nor the power to turn into the flesh and blood of Christ. You haven't the faintest idea what the doctrine is that you are dismissing.

Such a belief means that you are upset when they are spilled on the floor, as I once had a discussion elsewhere.

Obviously. What of it?

For a Christian obedience always does bring its reward and at the Lord's supper meditating on what Christ has done for me is most certainly a benefit.

Obviously. But that does not affect my position.

The silliness of imagining that the bread becomes the body entirely misses the point of Christ being with His people.

A point I have already shown conflicts with your position on God's presence with his people of the OT.

Indeed, such a belief in the transubstantiation of the symbols is proof, if proof were needed, of an inability to discern the Lord's body.

Such a comment is proof, if proof were needed of your own inability to understand the plain meaning of scripture:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.

It is noteworthy that the 39 Articles say this

No it isn't. The Thirty-nine articles have no authority in the Church and only have power insofar as the state gives them power (which is to say, none whatsoever now, and not even in the CofE). Moreover, it is evident that the position they are taking here

cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The passage pointed to most frequently is John 6:32-58 and especially verses 53-57, “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.

"However, Nicene Christianity did not become the state religion of the Roman Empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. In the mean time, paganism remained legal and present in public affairs. In 321 (four years before Nicaea), Constantine declared Sunday to be an Empire-wide day of rest in honor of the sun."

“The Inspector, having taken twenty four hours leave of absence, returned to the site and found evidence of a mass brawl and much ill feeling resultant thereof. He noted in his journal for the day ‘It would be better to avoid inflammatory terms such as Christian unity and instead talk of Christian co-operation, as one fears that sooner or later, a correspondent will need to be rushed to a proctologist to have a crucifix removed. The aforementioned clearly being a subject that boils the piss in both camps’.

However, Nicene Christianity did not become the state religion of the Roman Empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. In the mean time, paganism remained legal and present in public affairs. In 321 (four years before Nicaea), Constantine declared Sunday to be an Empire-wide day of rest in honor of the sun.

Wikipedia is not a source, and even if it were, this would only provide a source for one of your three claims.

Interesting that you've decided to bring up John 6 when no Catholic had done so. As for your reference to "spirit and life" I make a couple of points:

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"...Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Firstly, when put in its proper context it is immediately evident that the text does not in fact say what you say it says. He does not say "I mean my words to be taken with a spiritual meaning" but "My words are spirit and they are life."

Secondly, the immediate context is not to do with the meaning of flesh and blood before, but the unbelief of those who disbelieved. They cannot believe because they regard Jesus according to the flesh and the flesh is of no avail because the flesh cannot comprehend the spirit. Hence they cannot accept Jesus' teaching. But, as Jesus makes clear, this is because they do not accept him:

Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

I.e. at the moment they wonder how Jesus can give us his flesh to eat because they are rejecting Jesus, but when they see him ascending into heaven then they will see that they were wrong to reject him.

This interpretation is the correct one because it fits with the immediate context and makes proper sense of the words themselves, rather than imposing your alternative meaning. Secondly, it fits with the wider context in which Jesus far from taking the opportunity to say "I am only speaking spiritually" in fact ends up speaking more literally (the point is clearest in Greek). Thirdly, it makes most sense of the wider meaning of the Gospel. It is absurd to think that Christ can have meant his flesh is of no avail, for the whole message is that we are saved because the Word was made flesh.

So, by raising this passage with your false interpretation, you have simply strengthened the Catholic interpretation: we have two clear passages now proclaiming the real presence, and the attempts to interpret the plain meaning out of them only serve to show what the words themselves teach: This is my body...this is my blood.

The idea of consuming the body to 'gain the power' of ones enemies'(presumably ones friends would do also? ) is an entirely pagan idea and has no place in Biblical Christianity.So how do we accomplish what Jesus said?.

To 'internalize' the Spirit(Holy of Course ) can only be accomplished by the New Birth that Jesus stated as a direct command.You MUST be born again.And Christ is the only One who has authority to do that.

In fact the Catholic Priest is totally redundant but the RCC will never tell you that.

Albert, when you say "put into the proper context" you mean from a Catholic viewpoint.As a Catholic ALL you can do is promote your religion this is fine if that is what you want ...but it `aint Biblical Christianity and never will be....and you know this is so...

We can see through these hmmmm discussions that Catholics and Protestants can never unite.Unless one side compromises the entire foundation of their beliefs.Can two walk together unless they are in step?.

IF differing religions want to unite there must be a huge amount of compromise.Pope Francis has already made some controversial statements regarding a more 'inclusive' Church.

Pope Francis;

“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Seems that your Catholic theology is about to change Albert .After all the Pope can is infallible is he not?(when he sits in the special chair of course which he can do any time)So whatever you say can be changed by the Pope .The Word of God however stands forever.

The idea of consuming the body to 'gain the power' of ones enemies'(presumably ones friends would do also? ) is an entirely pagan idea and has no place in Biblical Christianity.

The fact that you have had to add your parentheses shows you point does not stand. In any case, the issue here is exegetical, and you haven't answered the exegesis. Let me give you a comparison. People say things like:

The idea of a god being born of a virgin is an entirely pagan idea and has no place in Biblical Christianity.

Now aside from the two biblical texts which teach the virgin birth, I think this statement would seem true. But there is not point pressing it against those two texts. Scripture teaches the virginal conception. Thus theological matters are not to be decided by what (we think) is pagan or not, but by revelation.

To 'internalize' the Spirit(Holy of Course ) can only be accomplished by the New Birth that Jesus stated as a direct command.You MUST be born again.And Christ is the only One who has authority to do that.

Agreed.

In fact the Catholic Priest is totally redundant but the RCC will never tell you that.

Please explain (without of course, misrepresenting Catholic belief).

when you say "put into the proper context" you mean from a Catholic viewpoint.

No, I mean the "immediate context" (as I say twice - odd you didn't notice). I do not presuppose a Catholic context, I simply mean to rule out a replacement of the scriptural context with a 16th Century Protestant one.

Lets get to what started the Reformation....can one buy ones ticket to Heaven through the Catholic church?.

If that's what the Protestant Reformation was about, it was based on a misunderstanding, so you can come back to the Catholic Church - all is forgiven.

Seems that your Catholic theology is about to change Albert

You have provided no evidence of that, just more evidence of your own misunderstanding.

After all the Pope can is infallible is he not?(when he sits in the special chair of course which he can do any time)So whatever you say can be changed by the Pope .

Not at all. The Pope cannot change what has already been infallibly defined (I would have thought that was obvious), so he cannot change what the Catholic Church teaches.

Len, Happy Jack notices you include all non-Catholic churches in this: "We can see through these hmmmm discussions that Catholics and Protestants can never unite."

Jack said earlier he agreed with the Archbishop that the "hurdles that remain are apparently insuperable". There are fundamental theological differences and the Catholic Church cannot change its teachings on certain things. Then add "women priests, women bishops, and the (most likely) development of a same-sex blessing/marriage liturgy" and the prospects are bleak.

Many members of the Anglican Community and also the Lutheran Church may not agree with your opinions or how you have arrived at them. Jack also thinks the Inspector made a good comment when he said: "It would be better to avoid inflammatory terms such as Christian unity and instead talk of Christian co-operation."

Do you disagree with Justin Welby inviting an ecumenical community made up of Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics to reside and pray together at Lambeth Palace?

Perhaps you should explain why Jesus is not a door, a light, a road or a vine but is a piece of bread and a drop of wine. Pewrhaps you are having trouble understanding the plain meaning

With pleasure. Firstly, the fact that Jesus sometimes speaks figuratively does not mean he always speaks figuratively. Thus, your argument would apply equally to you (unless you think everything Jesus says is only figurative).

Secondly, it seems evident to me that when working out whether Jesus is speaking figuratively, we have to ask whether there is something to which what he says could literally apply. In the examples you give, there is no literal referent, but with the Eucharist, there is a direct literal referent.

Thirdly, I ask whether this makes good sense of the passage. For the reasons already given it makes the best sense of both passages.

Fourthly, I ask whether this is the meaning received in tradition. From the earliest times, this interpretation has been given to the Eucharist.

Thus, I have no difficulty answering your question. Assuming you believe Jesus sometimes speaks literally, how do you answer your question?

As to the 39 Articles, they are the view of those who studied the Bible and still are today, although some who deal in a mixture of pagan and superstitious thinking claim otherwise.

This is simply false, because I have studied the Bible and do not accept them (well, not all of them). Luther two studied the Bible and would have rejected your view of the Eucharist as plainly contrary to scripture, and indeed as emptying scripture of any power whatsoever. But I note with interest that this is an appeal to authority. Perhaps you are more Catholic than you realise.

BTW Martin, in my first answer, I do not of course mean to subscribe to your misunderstanding of Catholicism, namely that Jesus is a piece of bread and a drop of wine. I mean only to speak to your alleged difficulty of knowing when Jesus speaks literally or figuratively.

Dear Martin, do I query the words of Our Lord? Goodness no, only the words of my Lord the Bishop after his post prandial. Do we fully comprehend the meaning of Our Lord's words? Perhaps, but then again, through a glass darkly. Do I want to be born again? No. As I said, once was enough. One doesn't like fuss.

It's not only Catholics v Protestants. This is also a highly divisive issue among the different Protestant churches (or ekklesiai). In the early days of the Protestant Reformation, Luther and Zwingli were brought together at the so-called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_Colloquy”>Marburg Colloquy</a> in 1529, in the hope that they could overcome their doctrinal differences and present a united Protestant front against Catholicism in all the German-speaking countries. There are said to have been fifteen items on the agenda. It took them only a few days to agree on fourteen of the fifteen points, but the fifteenth, on which they remained deadlocked, was precisely the one we have been discussing here, the nature of the Eucharist. This particular disagreement goes back a long way. And that’s only within Protestantism.

Neither of the two verses that you cite can be held in any way as support for Sunday worship.Remember, the Sabbath ended at evening. After the Sabbath they continued listening to Paul as he was leaving in the early morning.The act of going to Troas would in itself be a violation of the sabbath.Very similar thinking in the Corinthians text to which you referred.

Earlier on this thread I predicted that it would go over two hundred resonses.I swear that I am not trying to fulfill that prediction, but, in answer to your comment @ 19:55, the answer is yes, we do adhere to the sunrise/sunset observation.

However, I did ask for Biblical evidence--scripture and verse-- but such was not forthcoming.

As I said then, there is no specific explicit commandment, but then the Bible never says that's the only way it reveals. There is plenty of other biblical evidence as even some of my Protestant brethren were pointing out.

Perhaps you should explain why Jesus is not a door, a light, a road or a vine but is a piece of bread and a drop of wine. Perhaps you are having trouble understanding the plain meaning.

With pleasure. Firstly, the fact that Jesus sometimes speaks figuratively does not mean he always speaks figuratively. Thus, your argument would apply equally to you (unless you think everything Jesus says is only figurative)....God Lord! blah blah de blah blah. It appears the pleasure was all yours and yours alone, me shrewd papist!!!

Then this choice beauty of roman catholic misinformation "Fourthly, I ask whether this is the meaning received in tradition (Er NO!!!.) From the earliest times, this interpretation has been given to the Eucharist.(Rubbish!! Then you know nothing of the very earliest church fathers and their writings.. Lets see..Hmmm, What say you regarding Clement of Alexandria and his views on the Eucharist.

It is believed by some that Clement compiled all his “stramata” (miscellaneous writings) about the time he had reached the tender age of 40.If this is true, he would have been born while Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were still writing, and while Polycarp was still alive. As a teacher of Christian philosophy, Clement also instructed Origen who wrote during the mid third century.

Know his writings, do you?

After Clement’s death, Alexander, the bishop of Jerusalem, said of him, “For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.”Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skilful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients and Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.”

Such admiration and profuse praise could not have been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox.

Ernst always finds it interesting how easily Catholic apologists, such as your good RC self , will discount any church father’s testimony if it doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine. What is worse is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a respected source for this type of information to RC's like old Albert etc, completely dodges Clement and Origen on the topic

“The Sacrifice of the Mass.”

“Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm)

In plain English for those easily bamboozled by your doublespeak, the reason the Catholic Encyclopedia passed over Clement and Origen is because they both clearly taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat My body and drink My blood.”

How about Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr or Ignatius of Antioch..Perhaps these are too close to the source of the direct link to the holy apostles and you prefer others closer to the initial blasphemy?

How about I ask you a question, old sport : can you show me any evidence of Eucharistic worship in the ante-Nicene church? How about evidence of anyone in that same time period referring to the bread or wine as the body and blood of Christ?

Thus, I have no difficulty answering your question. **Hilarious giggles*

Ernst prefers reading the real writings of the early church fathers in Toto at source rather than out of context by RC apologists.

Seems if they say it long enough, ad nausem , they are able to mysteriously change the stated written facts from one thing to another..Now that sounds familiar? Now where did I just hear that? *Chuckles*

I'm amazed that you are appealing to the Fathers of the Church to defend your position. But even more am I amazed that you appeal to them without actually quoting them. So how about some quotations. For the record, yes, I am familiar with these sources:

Ignatius:They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.

St Justin:For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS

St Irenaeus:When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST

Tertullian:Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD...THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE..

Origen:You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish

St Clement:The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!

The reason the Catholic Encylopedia passes over the latter two is because, being Alexandrian they both use allegorical interpretations of everything. But an allegorical interpretation does not imply the absence of the thing signified - rather it implies the presence of the things signified - as should be evident from the quotations above. Hence, the CA just decided not to get overly involved in matter of patristic exegesis which were unnecessary for the point in question.

But Ernst @ 20.31, didn't the Council of Nicaea in 325AD reboot, to use a modern idiom, the whole of Christian belief? Constantine saw that rather than promoting societal unity, the noisy and fractious nature of the many competing Christian sects was a source of division. As an absolute ruler Constantine could see how doctrinal division could translate into political division. The mitigation of this risk was achieved by creating a Church that was both orthodox and catholic. Preceding heresies, such as Arianism, where arbitrarily dismissed without further debate.

In view of the long history between Nicaea and today, this communicant does not believe that it is practical to hark back to preceding Gnostic or Arian positions and claim them as still relevant.

bluedog, Happy Jack was interested in this comment of yours: "Constantine saw that rather than promoting societal unity, the noisy and fractious nature of the many competing Christian sects was a source of division."

Jack says it's a good job we put all that unseemly squabbling behind us 1700 years ago.

I'm amazed that you are appealing to the Fathers of the Church to defend your position. But even more am I amazed that you appeal to them without actually quoting them. So how about some quotations. For the record, yes, I am familiar with these sources:

Dear Chap

The difference being Ernst is going to show the FULL Context, both before and after, not extrapolate to define a false view.

So who called the Council of Nicaea and what was the intent of the gathering?

You say, 'far from Arianism being arbitrarily dismissed without further debate, it was in fact reinstated - or largely so, at the expense of Catholicism.'

Note this communicant's use of the small 'c' in catholic. To suggest that Catholicism existed before 1054 AD seems wholly anachronistic.

If Arianism survived it may have been outside the writ of Rome, within the Persian Empire for example, or in any event in a minority sect. As we know, many of the early beliefs (Nestorianism) did survive until recently within the former Middle Eastern Christian communities, now being dispersed by militant Islam. However, the eastern Orthodox and the western Catholic traditions of Christianity remain broadly true to the blueprint of Nicaea, per the Nicene creed. No?

My point to Ernst is that there seems little point in refuting the Nicaean settlement at this juncture. By extension, I can make a similar point to you. There seems nothing to be gained by highlighting the largely irrelevant survival in various Middle Eastern outposts of ancient heresies that are no longer relevant to the current divisions in Christianity.

I don't see the significance of 1054. All the elements of Catholicism are present before then, and schism between East and West had often taken place before then.

If Arianism survived it may have been outside the writ of Rome

Arianism did survive in later centuries - some of the barbarians were Arian. But my point is that the Roman Empire under Constantine was Arian for much of the Fourth Century. Sure, Constantine called the Council in 325, but he quickly felt it had failed to unite the Empire, so he brought the Arians back at the expense of the Catholics. So the Constantinian rebooting of the Church was anything but.

There seems nothing to be gained by highlighting the largely irrelevant survival in various Middle Eastern outposts of ancient heresies that are no longer relevant to the current divisions in Christianity.

Happy Jack, so far, finds the Catholic arguments about the Real Presence more persuasive.

Jack watched that youtube link posted by Corrigan and also read the Wiki link given by Uncle Brian and other associated articles. He also read the various bible verses being quoted and read commentators views on these. It seems clear to Jack that Jesus was not speaking figuratively and the bread and wine became at the Last Supper and still becomes His very body and blood.

Heavens, this is becoming an exercise in intellectual exhibitionism, most unlike Albert.

Albert says, 'For example, far from Arianism being arbitrarily dismissed without further debate, it was in fact reinstated - or largely so, at the expense of Catholicism (as St Athanasius shows).'

Please reference. Athanasius was not at Nicaea and by the 360's Constantine was dead. Julian may have been the contemporary to Athanasius and he was pagan so uninterested in Christian doctrinal debate. Athanasius was a public supporter of monophysitism, resulting in riots in Constantinople. A success? Or merely validating by default Constantine's attempts to prevent Christian doctrinal dispute spilling over in to the political arena? See above @ 21.45.

Tertullian and Arian both held that God the Father preceded the Son. Now considered a heresy in view of broad acceptance of the Trinity. Don't know about the others. How much of this stuff do you want?

And, 'I don't see the significance of 1054'

A lonely position, perhaps. Yes there had been earlier disputes, but wasn't this the final break, defined as 'The Great Schism', rather than another Minor Spat.

As a protestant I would now like to formally protest at the Roman Church's subsequent arrogation to itself of the term Catholic. To the protestant mind this theft of the term 'catholic' is rivalled only by the homosexuals theft of the term 'Gay'. Slightly off topic, but its a point that most definitely needs to be made.

I really don't get your post. What do you mean by saying Athanasius was a monophysite? Unless I am missing something, monophysitism was a Fifth century Christological heresy, not a Fourth Century Trinitarian heresy. Thus Athanasius did not provoke riots to do with that heresy.

I think Athanasius was at Nicaea and I cannot see the significance of the 360s, nor of your reference to Julian. Constantine was persecuting Athanasius from about the year 330.

You are right that ante-Nicene Fathers sometimes used expressions of the relation between the Father and the Son that we might sound heretical now - subordinationist to be precise, but that did not make them Arian. The key element in Arianism was the claim that the Son was created ex nihilo by the Father. This was never the claim before, and it simply served to help the Church to clarify what had been fuzzy earlier.

How much of this stuff do you want?

As much as you like. I love the Fathers!

As a protestant I would now like to formally protest at the Roman Church's subsequent arrogation to itself of the term Catholic.

Subsequent arrogation? The Catholic Church has used this title of itself, continually since the time of Ignatius. We are one and the same body as he knew.

St Clement:The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!

(The full verse from his writings Paedagogus 1:6 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm ( “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. {Your quote excludes this important part} We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” ) Last part sound familiar from somewhere, old fruit?? It should do!! (Ephesians 4:21-24

21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

and

Colossians 3:9-109 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:)

However further in Paedagogus, Clement writes emphatically "But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” You quote him but fail to understand that the entire chapter is an instruction on METAPHORS.

Earlier in that same chapter Clement said this:

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”

He then continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.”

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”

Clement further reiterates his instruction in Book 2 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm and uses it to define the Eucharist.

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2)

Therefore to partake of the Eucharist is far more than receiving communion.

To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The Eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.

In Clements stramata - Chapter 10. The Opinion of the Apostles on Veiling the Mysteries of the Faith “If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10)

Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine as you suggest from your out of context abstract , and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction.

The multiplication of paragraphs steeped in acrimony and uncharitableness, and rank with the ignorance of the masses, are a testimony that we should have kept the lower orders illiterate. They were surely happier without letters. How can one hope to "reap the souls of a million peasants" if those same protest (who taught them to protest in the first place? The Father of Lies, assuredly) loudly against such reaping with the aid of the media so-called?

Eleanor wishes me to press you to accept our long-standing invitation to come and visit us on the shores of Lago di Garda. The weather, I am sure, will be most suitable to your health, and the company (you know, our small colony of absentee English prependaries) most restful to His Lordship. Far, indeed, from those vulgar shouts that disquiet His Grace's forum.

Clement explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.” Jesus told His disciples, “I have meat to eat you know not of …My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me, and finish His work.”

Clement most wonderfully instructs those younger in the faith who will hear him on this intimate relationship between Christ and His church, things the carnal mind just can’t grasp, does he not, as you and your church show historically in this matter.

"The reason the Catholic Encylopedia passes over the latter two is because, being Alexandrian they both use allegorical interpretations of everything."

The Catholic Church is indeed in quite a quandary and predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings as you do likewise, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox.

As previously stated, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church.

If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? Can you show me them saying he was heretical as he does indeed deny 'the presence' most emphatically.

What we do find however is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.

It seems a doctrine doesn’t have to make sense as long as it is taught by the Roman Catholic Church. *Huge Guffaws and Chortles*

Strange that from the time the Roman Catholic Church began to honor saints and martyrs with feast days until the 17th century, Clement was venerated as a saint.

Would you like me to deal with Origen also, then work towards clearing up all others you quote?

Blofeld

Ps

How about I ask you a question, old sport : can you show me any evidence of Eucharistic worship in the ante-Nicene church?

Awaiting : How about evidence of anyone in that same time period referring to the bread or wine as the body and blood of Christ?

Perhaps you read that carefully and are naturally unable to provide the correct evidence relevant to that very 'specific' question.

Happy Jack has been contemplating why the Eucharist is so contentious. What should be the very centre of Christian unity in and with Christ, divides.

Why?

It is unsurprising protestant schools could not agree. Luther's position required an Episcopalian, priestly, and Apostolic church. Zwingli and others were opposed to this and any organised authority between God and individuals. How could they agree?

The division over the Eucharist strikes at the heart of the nature of the "church".

Jack is now convinced the term "protestant" is unhelpful in examining the different theories about salvation.

It's all gone very quiet now Ernst has spoken..Must be texting Santo Oficio Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei like mad for further instruction from the mother ship. The Catholic Borg are stumped and need to assimilate further (AHEM) Revealed Truths from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.

A concise explanation for those interested but not via YouTube or wiki...The benchmark for biblical authority for doctrine seems to be a very low bar indeed, Jack Lad!!! ...

The doctrine insists that the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine become the glorified body and blood of Christ when blessed by the priest.

The doctrine further asserts that the substance of bread and wine are no longer present (It is an illusion on the mind) and only the accidents (characteristics or appearance) remain.

Thus, the name derived from the explanation becomes transubstantiation (a change of substance).

It is this belief that compels devout Roman Catholics to worship the Eucharistic bread (placed in a monstrance for the purpose of adoration) because they believe the bread to be the glorified Christ.

This doctrine also asserts that during the last supper where Jesus instituted the memorial of His passion, the bread, after being blessed by Jesus, became His literal glorified body.

One major problem with this, dear RC chaps; Jesus was not yet glorified when he shared the Passover meal with His disciples.

Proof of that is found explicitly in two places, John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

and

John 17: 5 (And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.).

Blowers

Jack asks "What should be the very centre of Christian unity in and with Christ, divides. Why? " The VERY center, my lad.

There must be more that unites than this one thing you claim as the center and it is NOT the center to us but RC's. There's the rub.

Most of the heresy of Rome comes from innocently accepting such a simple thing twisted from it's original meaning as The Mass, His body in a mere wafer, sacerdotal priesthood (It is His VERY BLOOD substantiated to RC's, the system in operation), Eucharist is denied if you have not confessed to a priest, etc etc.

You said this"Yes, of course I can consistently say that the bread and wine remain bread and wine though partaking in the fellowship meal of remembrance brings condemnation when it is done in the wrong way."

Albert said this in return;

"For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."

Is this the sentence, Phil.

What did you learn from it that lead to a Bible study in the context of Bread and Wine as Paul says something very specific and his phrasing here is distinctive?

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Corinthians 11.29)

Paul’s warning is to see the “body” as the body of Christ, i.e., the church. The point of the whole passage is to teach the church how to be the united body of Christ. Their failure was that the Supper was an occasion for divisions, not unity. They were despising the church and coming together for the worse, not the better. The whole point of the section is to teach them to wait for one another so that they would not bring judgment upon themselves (see 1 Corinthians 11.33-34).

notice that he did not teach them to “discern the body and blood of the Lord.” In the previous verses, he wrote about the “body and blood,” always connecting these two things together in the celebration of the Supper. We are to examine ourselves as we eat the bread and drink the cup. And anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body is guilty of judgment.

Did you notice that Paul did not write “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body and blood eats and drinks judgment…” In other words, the body in this verse is the body of Christ and not the bread of the Supper.

"Happy Jack is not convinced by your objections to the Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus. Jack has read the biblical texts referred to."

You said earlier.."Happy Jack, so far, finds the Catholic arguments about the Real Presence more persuasive."

Dear Lad..Have you cast yourself as the final arbitrator of what is acceptable, verifiable or believable to us on the blog, using YouTube and Wiki? and where is this 'Jack has read the biblical texts referred to' reasoned here with substantiated arguments.

Blowers

ps

Just heard the Maria Von Trappe has died. Ernst does so love the Sound of Music!!

Blowers, of course Happy Jack does not believe he is "the final arbitrator of what is acceptable, verifiable or believable to us on the blog"! Jack just offered his view and you are free to reject it.

Why repeat the arguments and re-quote the biblical texts that have been presented? Jack believes the "substantiated arguments" have been made; are supported in the sources cited; in the writings of Luther; and in that youtube video.

I promise My special protection and the greatest graces to all who shall recite the Rosary.

The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.

It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.

The soul which recommends itself to Me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.

Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its sacred mysteries, shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.

Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church.

Those who are faithful in reciting the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plenitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the saints in paradise.

I shall deliver from purgatory, those who have been devoted to the Rosary.

The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven.

You shall obtain all you ask of Me by the recitation of the Rosary.

All those who propagate the holy Rosary shall be aided by Me in their necessities.

I have obtained from My Divine Son, that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors, the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death.

All who recite the Rosary are My sons, and brothers of My only son Jesus Christ.

Devotion to My Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

"And we know the Pope loves Our Lady! In a way, we made sure of it! When we went to Rome before the papal conclave, we lobbied all the Cardinals, stressing how important it was that we have a Marian Pope who would do as Our Lady of Fatima asked!

The Cardinals elected Pope Francis. The day after his election he made a surprise visit to St. Mary Major, where he knelt before the Icon of Our Lady. We had reason then to believe that our prayers had been answered!

Within weeks of his election, Pope Francis asked Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon — twice! — to consecrate his papacy to Our Lady of Fatima!

This consecration took place on May 13, at the Shrine of Fatima, with all the bishops of Portugal participating! No Pope had ever done this — not in the almost 100 years since the apparitions of Fatima! What could it mean?

IT COULD ONLY MEAN THAT WE HAVE IN POPE FRANCIS THE HOLY FATHER WE HAVE WAITED AND PRAYED FOR!

The Holy Father’s devotion to Our Lady swept like a fire of love through the world." http://www.fatima.org/fathersdesk/lp/fdlp0913.asp

but when is an Imprimatur not an Imprimatur..See the tongue twists and mind gymnastics of Ernst's old online rc guru know it all, Mr Jimbo Akin http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-the

"it was judged that the promises are not contradicted by (1) the dogmas of the Church or (2) the common Catholic doctrine of the councils and documents of the Holy See or (3) the prescriptions and thinking of approved doctors and that the promises were of a controversial nature, with some (like the publishers of the pamphlet) affirming them and others (like the Catholic Encyclopedia) rejecting them.

What are your thoughts?" Well, I was wondering if..but can one say that..OOh, never mind!!!

This paragraph is so unusual,avi my lad, you probably would not always look at this kind of paragraph. It looks so ordinary that you would think nothing is wrong with it – nothing is, but what’s unusual about it?

The paragraph is unusual because there is no letter ‘e’ in this paragraph. Why is that unusual? It’s because the letter ‘e’ is the most common letter in the English vocabulary.

Ha! I like that! I tried to analyze it, thinking myself pretty good at this kind of stuff and no, didn't catch it. Most unusual indeed.

Brandy couldn't get you sleepy, Mr Blofeld? Those leeches of yours need to prescribe a more effective pain killer. Try Leo Sayers on YouTube and if it's your cuppa, I've developed I fascination with the old Mellotron, especially how Genesis played around with its weird sounds in the 60s and 70s, as in Watcher of the Skies.

Those leeches of yours need to prescribe a more effective pain killer. (Morphin it will Be then!)

Try Leo Sayers on YouTube and if it's your cuppa, I've developed I fascination with the old Mellotron, especially how Genesis played around with its weird sounds in the 60s and 70s, as in Watcher of the Skies.

Strange you should say that re music...Just started reminiscing about The Sweet, Mott the Hoople, Queen and Bowie on YouTube and especially the genius of Sparks..Dis tawn aint beeg enuff for da boath of ouse.* Big Chortles*

You have no idea, Blofeld, what a very great pleasure it is to see you in such bubbling form today." It's the alcohol and drugs!

Time for another one of Ernsty's song and dance numbers? "Going blind in me only good eye, Kidney cysts, Osteoarthritis, Spinal tumour, can barely walk and may have COPD..How can I do anything that looks like I am the living incarnation of Sammy Davis Jnr? and if you start singing 'Always look on the right side of Life' Ernst will somehow track you down and throttle you!!!" *Giggles*

Those leeches of yours need to prescribe a more effective pain killer. (Morphin it will Be then!)Sigh. One such leech reckoned my old Ma was a sherry alcoholic, until they diagnosed her decades-old tumours--6 weeks before she died. Even then, only in the last week or so did they admit the extent of her pain and provide some relief.

Oh, they're really weird about doling out the heavies. I wouldn't mind if every mafia-friendly bozo and grizzly, brain-pickled youngster didn't live on the stuff (including some of the medics/dentists, I suspect)! Maybe it's a closed shop, or something, but they're incapable of seeing that, for serious purposes, no intelligent sufferer would want to take it long enough for it to lose efficacy.

Weirdly, also, I had the worst trouble picking up my own prescription after spinal bone grafts --- the 'other-ethnicity' chemist treated me as if I were a hardened addict (and truly, I haven't those symptoms or records)! While waiting for the approval to ring through, I got stalked around the chemists' by a very nasty looking creep...Nothing will ever drag me near that shop again.

It's a truly messed up world out there; one prays you'll fare rather better, Mr. B :)

It's all gone very quiet now Ernst has spoken..Must be texting Santo Oficio Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei like mad for further instruction from the mother ship.

No Ernst, it's because we'd all gone to bed.

I don't have to worry about your references to Clement for several reasons. Firstly, because he is only one Father. Why would I deny the authority of all the others - especially those more ancient - simply to grant your example? Anyone who reads the Fathers enough knows that you can find odd opinions here and there on more or less anything. All that tells us is the very Catholic principle that, even for them, the private judgement of the individual is not enough. This is particularly true given that each Father regards his teaching as needing to be submitted to the judgement of the Church.

Secondly, I have already answered the point you are making. Anyone can see from even a cursory reading of Clement, that, like his pupil Origen (whom you also refer to, though you seem not to have noticed that Origen was later declared a heretic) drank rather too deeply from the chalice of Platonism. Thus anything physical, in any context, comes to be downgraded and fitted into a wider - somewhat pagan - philosophical system. His spiritualism therefore, is not a witness to the tradition received from the apostles, but of his desire to reconcile the faith with his pagan context. Let this be clearly understood: pagan thought worked against realistic sacramental theology, not the other way around.

Thirdly, it is far from clear whether your interpretation is correct, for the reasons I have given, but which you have not answered (as far as I can see). I have already cited a realistic interpretation, to that, I add this:

I am He who feeds thee, giving Myself as bread, of which he who has tasted experiences death no more, and supplying day by day the drink of immortality.

It is telling therefore, that you have had to resort to appealing to the least reliable Father to make your point, and that you have had to interpret him in the most pagan way possible. A back-handed compliment from Ernst, to the Church of Rome!

You have my admiration. To retain a sense of humour during the trials that oppress you is heartening.There is still spirit in the land.A native courage, fortitude and dignity. Too bad it never manifests itself except in times of trouble. If only these admirable traits could be employed in a pro-active way we would be governed by men not mice.Prayers for you my man.

You too non mouse. Even if there was nothing else, this blog serves to make me count my blessings.

Paul’s warning is to see the “body” as the body of Christ, i.e., the church. The point of the whole passage is to teach the church how to be the united body of Christ.

Of course it is teaching that Ernst, but "the body of Christ" clearly refers to both the Eucharist and the Church. That Paul is not simply speaking of the presence of Christ in the Church only but also in the Eucharist, is surely evident from the fact that he is not just speaking of the body of Christ being profaned, but also the blood of Christ - and this in the context in which he has just quoted the Lord:

"This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

It is arbitrary and twists the meaning of the words to restrict the meaning of the text to Christ's bodily presence as Church.

And what does all this prove, yet again? the inability of the individual to interpret the scriptures by private judgement. Another back-handed compliment.

Perhaps you interpret it as "Suffering in Silence" or "Rolling over and playing dead." Maybe even 'Shutting up and doing as you're told."If,in fact, such is the case.

I construe it differently: "Carrying on in times of trials." "Not letting the buggers get you down." "Keeping your chin up."As Ernesty seems to me, to be doing.

Let me add that I do not agree with much of what he posts.He bangs on about a "Rapture." The veracity of which is fundamental to the promotion of the doctrine of "Dispensationalism." An amazingly creative extra-biblical fiction.

If I understand him correctly, he champions the invention of an eternal, ever-burning, never-ending Hell. As Pagan a perversion as has ever entered Christendom.

He avers that I am not a Christian.I wish him well.

He is a Protestant as I also profess to be.The differences in our understanding is in every way as profound as those between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Perhaps you interpret it as "Suffering in Silence" or "Rolling over and playing dead." Maybe even 'Shutting up and doing as you're told."

Why would you think I think that? Of course I don't think that. For me though, dignity is inconsistent with the way in which Ernst writes. Compare him with the kind of comments you have made to me when we have disagreed and you will see the difference.

Hello Albert, yes, my post at 22.43 was a bit ragged. It seems a world away, too.

Some points. You are quite right, Athanasius did attend the first Council of Nicaea, aged 27 and as secretary to Alexander of Alexandria, Patriarch of same. Communicants will not need reminding that Miletius of Lycopolis fiercely opposed Athanasius' subsequent appointment to the episcopacy in 328.

Constantine the Great died in 337 and was succeeded by Constantius II who ruled until 361. There were then three short reigns before Valentinian ascended in 364 and ruled until 375. This is relevant in that Tom Holland in his book 'The Shadow of the Sword reports that in 367, Athanasius did preach on monophysitism in such a way as to cause a riot in Constantinople.

You say Ignatius devised the term Catholic. With respect, you may find that Ignatius first used the term Christianismos, meaning Christianity. Again, per Tom Holland. Clearly this is different terminology to your suggestion of 'Catholic'.

About halfway through our last endurance trial (Jan. 06) Ernst did advise that I was not really a Christian.No offence taken."

Our conversation that day was;

"IanCad

"I'm struggling here Ernst, Quite what I have misunderstood about what you said, I am at a loss to know.Now I do have difficulty with your later post."

Dera FellowThis is because you are a Seventh Day Adventist and believe something completely different from a BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN!!!"

and

"A Christian is NEVER judged worthy of eternal life by his works (They are resurrected at the rapture!!) and there is no judgment/condemnation in Christ Jesus!!"

further

"Dear fella...Ernst waits for your "Investigative Judgment" on the matter with bated breath.

Hopefully it won't be as long as it took from 1844 for the Lord NOT to return as SDA predicted, for someone to get the hint that they were sorely mistaken and led astray as you are here."

Ernst does admonish those that believe something that is not Biblical but to say/claim I could state that someone is not saved that claims Jesus is outrageous and something I never do..Only the Lord knows those he has saved not old me.

I only show the flaws to get others to think again by use of the only plumb rule possible..His Holy Word and not the dodgy testimony of false prophets or our misguided adherence to unBiblical sources as truth.

It's all gone very quiet now Ernst has spoken..Must be texting Santo Oficio Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei like mad for further instruction from the mother ship."

No Ernst, it's because we'd all gone to bed."

All Ernst can say is that humour bypass carried out by the Surgeon General of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition was a resounding success and you can now travel easily along route 666!!!

*Chuckles*

Ernst

"I am sorry to hear about your various illnesses - may God bless you." Much appreciated but don't be going soft on me, I need your best game always at all times!! *Giggles*

Although on different ends of the spectrum, and without reference to any theological points of contention, I shall underscore my previously stated view that Catholicism is more constant in its support of doctrine than most Protestant denominations.We may disagree, Albert, but may I flatter myself in suggesting that we are Brothers in consistency?

Blowers, honestly, what questions to ask Happy Jack. From the complexities of the Eucharist to divisions over Mary!

"What say you, Jack Lad.Was Mary indeed a sinner and in need of a saviour or does the scriptures lie concerning her.Look forward to hearing your take on this."

You expect Jack to be an expert on all things biblical? What does scripture say about Mary? That she was highly favoured and the Lord was with her; and that she was blessed amongst all women; and the handmaid of the Lord. Mary was also inspired to say, "from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name."

Jack will consider the issues a bit more. However, he agrees all of mankind needs Jesus as their saviour - even Mary, and even if she was born without sin and full of grace. She wasn't a Goddess, Jack knows that much. Maybe God granted her freedom from sin to make her a fitting mother for his Son.

Jesus was sacrificed ONCE and for all time but the Catholics have as many masses as possible [endlessly] so that infers that what Jesus did at Calvary was insufficient for salvation.Jesus obviously needs the help of Catholic Priests to get the job done properly?.

Of course a Christian will see this as absolute nonsense and an insult to God.I think the problem [one of the problems anyway) that Catholics have is they disregard what God says in favour of their Priests say and do.So who`s authority are Catholics under their Churches or Gods?This is a question as old as time itself' who`s voice do you obey God`s or the deceivers?'Did God really say?.

"That Paul is not simply speaking of the presence of Christ in the Church only but also in the Eucharist, is surely evident from the fact that he is not just speaking of the body of Christ being profaned, but also the blood of Christ - and this in the context in which he has just quoted the Lord: "

It is arbitrary and twists the meaning of the words to restrict the meaning of the text to Christ's bodily presence as Church.

Paul gives his reason, as not to defining the Eucharist as you suggest but the abuse of the Lord's Supper ITSELF in gathering!!!Should the remembrance aspects as you suggest have been false now was the chance to correct it, apostolically. HE DID NOT, so believers understood the true meaning of the Lord's supper but were abusing the spirit of it in meeeting as the ody.

30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come. (1 Corinthians 11.30-34)

You are making a false correlation where none exists for Paul, when he admonishes the Corinth church in specifics that have lead to illness and death by Divine Judgment.

And what does all this prove, yet again? (That you do not know your Athanasius from your Eusebius? *Chortles*) the inability of the individual to interpret the scriptures by private judgement (Rather the RCC hasn't got a clue what it's defining but the faithful attach to mother church's nipple regardless of facts or sense!)). Another back-handed compliment.(In your mind only, me old paint)

Tom Holland in his book 'The Shadow of the Sword reports that in 367, Athanasius did preach on monophysitism in such a way as to cause a riot in Constantinople.

Tom Holland is a historian writing on a different topic (albeit, this is a book I want to read - do you recommend it?). Historians tend to muddle the theological debates of this period. Can you give a primary reference (does he give one?)? Monophysitism is a heresy that only emerges rather later - after the Council of Ephesus in 431 - although there were texts falsely attributed to Athanasius holding it.

As a case in point of Holland not getting it quite right:

You say Ignatius devised the term Catholic. With respect, you may find that Ignatius first used the term Christianismos, meaning Christianity. Again, per Tom Holland. Clearly this is different terminology to your suggestion of 'Catholic'.

Well, here's the passage in English:

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

So I stand by my earlier contention: Ignatius called the Church "Catholic", Athanasius did not preach monophysitism, and orthodox Catholics were persecuted by Constantine, who did not therefore reboot the Church, but rather breathed new life into a condemned heresy.

"However, he agrees all of mankind needs Jesus as their saviour - even Mary, and even if she was born without sin and full of grace."

A Saviour defines that one who has power to help free you from something that traps you, that you cannot be freed from without THEIR help!!! - Savior or Saviour may refer to: a person who helps people achieve salvation, or saves them from something.

Maybe God granted her freedom from sin to make her a fitting mother for his Son...". or does the scriptures lie concerning her.

My dear Dean, thank you for your invitation to join you in Italy. I shall give orders for my portmanteau and Gladstone to be packed immediately. My batteries are flat, I need some sunshine and am feeling weary. I trust you have located an Anglican Chapel in the local vicinity? One needs some spiritual refreshment, and I'm not talking Hendriks. Please give my kindest regards to dear Eleanor.

Paul gives his reason, as not to defining the Eucharist as you suggest but the abuse of the Lord's Supper ITSELF in gathering!!!

If you are having to rely on such a fine distinction (i.e. one that isn't real) then I rest my case.

Should the remembrance aspects as you suggest have been false now was the chance to correct it, apostolically. HE DID NOT, so believers understood the true meaning of the Lord's supper but were abusing the spirit of it in meeeting as the ody.

You are ignoring the very correction he gives.

That you do not know your Athanasius from your Eusebius?

?

A Saviour defines that one who has power to help free you from something that traps you

Not necessarily. I can be saved from a pit either by someone pulling me out or by someone stopping me falling in in the first place.

or does the scriptures lie concerning her

When scripture says "All have sinned" it plainly does not mean it in an absolutely universal sense - if it did, it would mean Christ had sinned. What about a child who dies moments after birth - have they sinned? Obviously, the meaning of this passage is analogous - in the sense that it's application varies on the individual.

Blowers, Happy Jack notes that Mary herself said, "My soul rejoices in God my saviour". It is possible Mary was saved from sin by receiving the Grace to be preserved from it. The angel greeted Mary with the title "Hail, full of grace." An unusual title to give her.

As for "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and "If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him", well Jesus was fully human as well as God and never sinned. This is surely talking about personal sin that is the result of the Fall and it making us "degenerates". Certainly not Jesus, born pure and so why not His mother?

Many have died without personally sinning - babies, young people, anyone who does not know the act he is about to perform is sin and freely doing it. Children, and adults with only the mentality of a child, do not have the use of their intellect and control of their will and so cannot personally sin. These are many exceptions to these passages.

Mr Blofeld said, Time for another one of Ernsty's song and dance numbers? "Going blind in me only good eye, Kidney cysts, Osteoarthritis, Spinal tumour, can barely walk and may have COPD..How can I do anything that looks like I am the living incarnation of Sammy Davis Jnr?

Well, alright, bit of a challenge on your hands there, one must concede. You are excused from the dance part for now and we won't hold it against you if you come short of the qualifications for the next Olympic Games. Overwhelming, such things for most of us ordinary mortals, but you are Ernsty Blowers the Brave and Invincible. May we all have your courage, purpose, faith, capacity for poetry and sense of humour when it's our turn to face such challenges, Mr Blofeld...and face them we will, for none of us is getting any younger.

Goodness Happy Jack! I could oly run off with a prelate. Once a bishop's wife, always a bishop's wife. Mr. Slope has taken a sabbatical and is up to something with the Vienna Boys'Choir. He has promised to share his aria when he comes back. I have declined.

Albert @ 13.22, I downloaded Holland's book onto my kindle, started it and became annoyed by its flamboyant literary style, so drifted away to other opportunities. Have just restarted the book because the subject matter is of interest. Holland does reference thoroughly but finding same on kindle is hard if you are me.

Thank you. Mmmm...I'm not sure if that's a recommendation or not! My one worry is that the sources I have cited are either the primary sources themselves, or highly respectable secondary scholars (none of them Catholic). If Holland's grasp of Islamic history is as dodgy as his grasp of Christian history, then there's a problem.

Paul gives his reason, as not to defining the Eucharist as you suggest but the abuse of the Lord's Supper ITSELF in gathering!!!

"If you are having to rely on such a fine distinction (i.e. one that isn't real) then I rest my case."

Don't rest yet, fella!

I am showing you are attaching something that is not there.

Paul said absolutely nothing regarding the doctrine of transubstantiation as you claim or imply. They were meeting in REMEMBRANCE , not your defined Mass! I see or hear no priest mentioned here.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The dying and illness had occurred during the gathering for the Lord's table, hence the Judgment by God.

The problem is explained in no uncertain terms in 1 Corinthians 11:21-22

21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

Ever come to a party or meal late for whatever reason and found only the odd crumbled slice of cake or soggy vol au vent left..Then you know what Paul is referring too!

Paul offers no doctrinal insight or clarity of statement of the 'Real Presence' as RC's put it!

He is addressing the body and makes us face the fact that God deals with sin, especially church members' deceit and lack of integrity.

This sin, like all sin, is finally not against human beings but against God but sin blinds us to the true nature of the offense: that our sin is against God. Sin also blinds us so that we choose short-term gains in this life, heedless of the long-term loss in the next.

Luke 9:24-25

24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?

For Christians today as then, this is still a temptation: to so luxuriate in the love and grace of God that we do not take seriously the consequences of our deliberate sinning before Him. God will not be mocked (Gal 6:7-8).

The message of this disobedient act at the Lord's table for Christian and non-Christian alike is self-evident.

Christians must realise that the selfless, transparent fellowship of the church must never be violated by selfish hypocrisy whilst saying we love and honour the Lord.

Further, it is right and proper to discipline the body to guard the church's integrity, unity and purity.

For the non-Christian, this account is a warning: Think twice before joining this holy fellowship. Are you willing to pay the price--fully renouncing wicked ways and full-heartedly embracing Christ and other believers in his body, the church?

From http://catholicism.about.com/od/worship/p/The_Mass.htm - The Mass as "Unbloody Sacrifice":

Very early on, the Church saw the Mass as a mystical reality in which the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is renewed.(This is nonsense as Ernst has shown with early church fathers such as St Clement of Alexandria) Responding to Protestant sects who denied that the Eucharist is anything more than a memorial, the Council of Trent (1545-63) declared that "The same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, is present and offered in an unbloody manner" in the Mass.

Dear Catholic website, please explain in unequivocal terms and plain English what this means PLEASE.

This does not mean, as some critics of Catholicism claim, that the Church teaches that, in the Mass, we sacrifice Christ again (So what does it mean then?). Rather, the original sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is presented to us once more (So you ARE re sacrificing Him again daily but in divers places unlike the once that He died on Calvary Hill in the flesh..Gottcha, me fine papal polysēmus diviner....Nudge Nudge ; ; say no more, say no more).

The truth of the bread being the actual body and the wine being the actual blood of Christ being explained here by Paul...Ernst thinks not!

"Overwhelming, such things for most of us ordinary mortals, but you are Ernsty Blowers the Brave and Invincible. May we all have your courage, purpose, faith, capacity for poetry and sense of humour when it's our turn to face such challenges, Mr Blofeld...and face them we will, for none of us is getting any younger. " That's all very easy for you to say to Ernst my lad but I've nearly drank me whole Gottle of Grandy...

Albert, if you want something more personal to blame the Jesuits for, the Jesuits of Farm Street (Fr Thomas Corbishley SJ specifically) received my mother into the Church as an adult convert and gave her her instructions in the Faith.

Had they not done so, I almost certainly would have been baptised and brought up in the Church of England, and probably would never have felt either angry enough, inspired enough or passionate enough to do the amount of reading or writing I have done in recent years. (And it is quite amazing how many times I've read something about the Roman Catholic faith, thought, "Actually, that makes a lot of sense" and then discovered afterwards that a Jesuit wrote it) :)

So every time Sister Tiberia raises your blood pressure, you can blame that (indirectly) on all those wily Jesuits as well :)

Albert @ 21.35, a complete collapse. Having re-read the relevant chapters in Holland's book it seems that I have confused Athanasius with Anastasius at some point in my deliberations. And there is more than one Anastasius in late antiquity. Naturally I blame this on Holland, who to maintain his racy read tends not to contextualise or annotate new names that he drops into the narrative. Apologies for the confusion.

Sister Tiberia, Happy Jack blames the dratted Jesuits for all this rain we're having. It is getting beyond a joke now. They must have invented a weather control system and are causing a deluge! Jack wouldn't put it past them.

Is the pope a Catholic or a Jesuit? It seems to Jack that Francis' words can be understood in whatever way one wants.

When the Pope Benedict retired, I did have a flutter on who would be the next Pope- I do recall Corrigan giving me some tips. There was speculation that he was going to be black or Asian, so I look up 'black Pope[?]' and I got all these websites telling me that the Jesuits controlled the Vatican under the sinister and conspiracy theory type- guise of a 'black Pope'. But Albert seems to be implying that the Jesuits are a lot of aged hippies or as Sister Tibs says 'wily' ?!

I think, David, that the biggest evidence that the Jesuits never controlled the Vatican was the string of poor public relations decisions that have come out in recent years. The Jesuits have been called many things (good and bad) but they have never been called stupid. If they'd been pulling the strings behind the scenes, the political publicity would have been very different :)

Of course, you are at liberty to decide whether that would have been a good or a bad thing. :)

Well, I took it and take it as the usual cranks and loons of the websphere; you know illuminate, elders of Zion, UFO's from Zeta Reticuli, the 7 babylons, the belief that Jews really control the world, via the Jesuits etc etc, i.e. a work of fictional delusion. I don't know what is more scarry, that people write this bull or that they really believe it (?).

Oh and as general comment to the community here, I noticed that last week Islamic scholars issued a fatwar against Muslims travelling in space and or going to Mars (has Johnny Rottenborugh got his ticket?). Of course one excepts that if us Jews had a hand in colonising the red planet and as Israeli water desalination ,farming,irrigation & taming of the Negev desert shows, we'd make it quickly habitable.

Although I cannot help but think if that ever happened, there would a chorus of leftie liberals in one corner and Jew haters in another, claiming that they were all there 'first' and it is really 'their' land which is 'occupied territory' conned by 'cunning Zionists' or whatever their propaganda comes out with, which would, of course, be after all the hard work has been done....

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)